- #1

- 33

- 4

I realize of course that this will probably not apply to all physicists, but at least every physicist in my university's math department is very unrigorous when it comes to mathematics. This is frustrating because some of the physics material seems genuinely interesting, but the lack of an axiomatic approach, proofs, and rigor makes it incredibly unappealing (I've skimmed the course notes).

I've had my first Physics class today, which is only taught to 3rd year pure math undergraduates, and it was incredibly disappointing. The professor said a lot of words to say so little, the first 30 minutes could've been resumed to ''we assume the position of our point particles at any given time can be described as a vector in a 3 dimensional Euclidean vector space". The professor was literally explaining what an inner product is, to a class that's had 2 semesters of linear algebra and 2 semesters of geometry.

Several of the times that the professor tried to formalize things mathematically were ought right incorrect, for example forgetting that sets are unordered and thus you can't both describe an N point system as a point in IR^(3N) and a set (simultaneously that is x = {r1,...,rN} in IR^3, unless you have a fixed ordering beforehand, which would be the same thing as considering IR^(3N)/S_N with a fixed set of representatives).

I also hate that the space we're considering at any given time is mostly not written. this drives me nuts.

Also what does " t = t' " actually mean, that is probably the worst way to write that time is absolute. I hate that the burden of formalizing everything falls on the students and not the professor...

I've had my first Physics class today, which is only taught to 3rd year pure math undergraduates, and it was incredibly disappointing. The professor said a lot of words to say so little, the first 30 minutes could've been resumed to ''we assume the position of our point particles at any given time can be described as a vector in a 3 dimensional Euclidean vector space". The professor was literally explaining what an inner product is, to a class that's had 2 semesters of linear algebra and 2 semesters of geometry.

Several of the times that the professor tried to formalize things mathematically were ought right incorrect, for example forgetting that sets are unordered and thus you can't both describe an N point system as a point in IR^(3N) and a set (simultaneously that is x = {r1,...,rN} in IR^3, unless you have a fixed ordering beforehand, which would be the same thing as considering IR^(3N)/S_N with a fixed set of representatives).

I also hate that the space we're considering at any given time is mostly not written. this drives me nuts.

Also what does " t = t' " actually mean, that is probably the worst way to write that time is absolute. I hate that the burden of formalizing everything falls on the students and not the professor...

Last edited by a moderator: